A couple of post back I editted in an example of how we could create black ones...you may have missed it. So needless to say I disagree with your statement there. Further if nature can create black ones why don't we observe her doing it? We observe other natural phenomena...earth quakes, condensation, dust storms(we've seen these on other planets) happen independently time and again. Evolution is clearly a special case.

Problem is that you are comparing oranges to apples..

How does evolution of life compare to your passing of information from one being to another in the form of studying/teaching? Please explain.


OK, and once again , it's all great but you are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to evolution of life vs "evolutionary system"(which you so called call) of passing information from one being to another with the use of language and other tools.

You want to make the claim that for observing every evolutionary system designed by intelligence the probability is increased that the evolutionary system which gave rise to humans is also designed by intelligent. The problem is that the evolutionary systems you claim to be observed cannot be compared to the evolutionary system we are talking about. The truth is that we have not been able to observe any other evolutionary system of the similarities of the one we are part of. You can generalize evolutionary system as any process of formation or growth; development which becomes more complex, what's the similarity of them all? the name the description of process of formation/growth from simple to complex and adding additional subgroups, but when you go deeper into these evolutionary systems , each of them are differently occurring processes. So your claim that the observed "evolutionary system" of your professors and students in reality does not have anything to do with evolutionary system of life from simple organism to complex ones.


The more honest example of evolutionary system outside of life would be formation of galaxies or solar systems and planets, but you don't like this example because it shows that something can arrise from simplicity to complexity by natural processes. Let me add, that even this I would not consider to be the same type of evolutionary system as evolution of life. I am just stating that at least in this example we see transformation of simplicity to complexity of objects, unlike in your example it's human knowledge.

The only reason you would conclude it is NOT a natural occurance was if you had known of someone who was intelligent that produced something similar. In other words, without a notion of ID of any sort, neither a watch nor a Buick in nature should be attributed to anything other than nature.

So rather than intelligent design suggesting a designer it is intelligent designers that assume a designer in their own likeness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhdUp4JOHwg

Not near a computer, whas the link?

it's a great video by onespecies talking about the design, something you addressed to Stu..

I disagree with this. I think your average stone age person would reckognize a watch as technology even though they had never seen metal, gears, springs, glass, etc...or anything the watch was composed of.

With enough time to examine it, I think a stone age person could work out its purpose...especially if the watch had an alarm set to noon. Now they might not conclude the watch was the product of human intellect...they might think it a gift from the gods....but they would conclude it was the product of intellect.

Whats cool about the video is makes a point that there is no one designer you can point to as the designer of a car....but it also makes the point(perhaps not intentionally) that in every step in the "evolution" of a car an intellect was involved the in the process.

Without intellect...cars would still amount to random rolling logs.

You should watch the video when you get a chance.

I wouldn't say it substantiates my point because like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't believe God is behind some curtain like the wizard of Oz pulling levers and turning dials to control the happenings in the universe. Instead I believe God is more like Richard Dawkins setting his evolution program with a target so that it will eventually write the phrase, "Me thinks it is like a weasel". Then letting it run until it accomplishes that task.

You can say that, but I can say I'm comparing macintoshes to granny smiths to golden delicious to Fujis' etc. Criticism like this is meaningless and doesn't move the discussion forward.

What you are basically saying is that my comparision is unfair because I am comparing an evolutionary system whose origin is unknown...to evolutionary systems whose origins are known. Its only unfair because it doesn't support your world veiw right?

The truth is it is perfectly acceptible to make conclusions about evolutionary systems whose origins you don't know from observations of evolutionary systems whose origins are completely known. As long as we are comparing evolutionary systems you can't credibly claim I am comparing apples to oranges can. Such criticism doesn't pass the smell test.

Go back and read my opening post and see what I said there about the Periodic Table of the Elements. That's an example of precision.

I asked you to by what criteria you select an object that fits in the set of objects that contain the property of precision. I didn't ask you to reiterate to me an object which is in the set. Do you have an answer?

I also asked you what an object that didn't fit into that set would look like, do you have an answer for that?

No sir. Why it is unfair is because you are literally making a bad comparison... But you are going to continue to play this game of dishonesty , after all, you can't admit your whole idea is based on fallacious argumentation. You call two different systems similar and argue that one supports the same cause as the other. There are so many wrong things with your example it's hard to even know where to start.

Here's your original premise.

1.If all evolutionary systems whose origins are known required intellect at their inception then it is much more likely that an evolutionary system which you are ignorant of the circumstances of its inception also required an intellect.

a. you can't demonstrate even 1 evolutionary system of living organisms other than the one we don't know the origins of.
b. you proposed the following "evolutionary system"
- The education system. College professors produce college professors(successive generations). College professors pass on knowledge(heritiable characteristics). True knowledge gets passed on while untrue knowledge gets forgotten(natural selection).
This I gotta say is rather a silly example which I have a hard time to even see how this can be called an evolutionary system, better yet have anything to do with evolution occurring in life forms. In this example you have living beings who have ability to control information they pass on using all kinds of tools, to other beings. Why do you assume passed on knowledge in form of written down or remembered information is supposedly a heritable characteristic? True knowledge gets passed on while untrue forgotten? Natural Selection? really? If that was the case we wouldn't be here arguing with creationists and other silly beliefs. Once again, your evolutionary system doesn't even look like an evolutionary system. To add to it, the system you claim to be a system, relies heavily on the original evolutionary system which has created the life able to pass on information.

i'll add more, I have to change the computer...

ok i'm back...

OK let's make a detailed comparison of your evolutionary system to evolutionary system of life as we know it.

Evolution of life - Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Please explain to me how does this evolutionary system compare to yours..

Perfect. So we've established that hair and eye color are not necessary characteristics of a computer evolution simulator designer, but that human intellect is necessary.

We've also established that eye color, hair color, and human intellect are not necessary characteristics of a designer of biologic evolution. We have not established anything about the need for a non-human designer.

In this thread you defined an evolutionary system as one characterized by, among other things, successive generations. When presented with one potential example, you adopted a narrow definition requiring exact duplication. For your own example, anyone who ended up employed as a college professor was good enough to be a successive generation.

Stu -

The problem with your argument is that it seems to prove too much. It goes:

[1] X₁, X₂, ..., X_n-1 are observed evolutionary systems.
[2] Each is known to have been produced/perpetuated by human beings, which have the characteristic property of: possessing intellect.
[3] X_n is an evolutionary system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4] By induction, X_n was likely to have been produced/perpetuated by beings which: possess intellect (in some sense).

But we could also re-write as:

[1] X₁, X₂, ..., X_n-1 are observed evolutionary systems.
[2] Each is known to have been produced/perpetuated by human beings, which have the characteristic property of: being products of an evolutionary system (Darwinian evolution).
[3] X_n is an evolutionary system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4] By induction, X_n was likely to have been produced/perpetuated by beings which: were the product of an evolutionary system (in some sense).

Ok. So, in general, the more the inductive step relies on just the fact that X_n can be described in a similar way to X₁,...,X_n-1, then the weaker the argument. (And in this way you are using this argument, the inductive step relies ENTIRELY on the descriptive flexibility of evolutionary theory.)

For a very strong inductive argument, we do not just want to see abstract (descriptive) commonality between X_n and X₁,...,X_n-1; rather, we want to to see that X_n is "essentially the same" as X₁,...,X_n-1. E.g. all the X_i are swans.

exactly, and this is why I am arguing that he is comparing apples to oranges..

Of course we do. We know the origin of all of our automobiles.

I don't know. I haven't given it much thought. Mostly because I think it is irrelevant.

Unless you are some outlier, I am sure I could produce a make and model of a car of which you are unfamiliar. If you cannot identify such a car how could you....Deourum.....be sure that such a car was the product of human intellect not an artifact of nature?

I don't think it is irrelavent. If you could demonstrate that evolutionary systems just happen....that would completely destroy my argument.

My argument is strong simply becuase evolutionary systems are highly contrived.

Evolution is not random.

Evolution happens all the time. That's what is responsible for the diversity of life.

Let's try this another way. Let's assume there is no God. Life begins. Organisms compete for resources. Random mutations happen such that there is diversity in various organisms. Some randomly are better equipped to gather resources than others. Do you think the organisms less equipped to gather those resources will be equally likely to gather them as the organisms better equipped to do so?

Check the VIN?

Below is the definition of "precision" according to Webster's New World College Dictionary, which I already gave in my opening post. That's the only answer you will get from me. If you ask me the same thing again, you will be ignored.

DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

Do you care to respond to any of the other questions I've posted, or do you just want to wag your little wee wee around by simply quoting Webster and not engaging in the discourse you began?

What have you to say about the observations that "exactness, accuracy, and precise" aren't words that biologists would use to describe the eye? Let me guess, would you use some combination of the phrase "non-believers" and the word"opine" to demonstrate why only those that already hold the belief you do have the right to objectively talk about the nature of things?

Forget that 97% of the people on the planet who take this stuff seriously don't see a God in it, they aren't to be taken seriously or anything.

Since I don't think this was answered, I am reposting your question in SMP

There is only one lineage of life evolving. Don't you find this peculiar?

In this discussion it isn't irrelevant. If evolutionary systems are something that nature produces why don't we see nature producing them?

There is only one lineage of life that we have observed. Considering our observation is basically limited to our planet (barring SETI and space probes which in the grand scheme of things haven't really made it that far), I don't find this peculiar at all. I find this expected.

I find it peculiar that you find it peculiar tbh.

p.s. what did you think of that video I linked to you?